Talk:Predatory publishing

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Predatory publishing article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 365 days

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Academic Journals

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Open Access High‑importance

Predatory publishing is part of WikiProject Open Access, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to Open Access and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Open AccessWikipedia:WikiProject Open/Open access task forceTemplate:WikiProject Open AccessOpen access articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Open Access to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Creative Commons licensing (to replace Creative Commons license); Creative Commons Attribution License (currently a redirect), reproducible research (currently a redirect), supplementary material. Scholarly Open Access (currently a redirect)
Cleanup : Access2Research
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stub-Class Open access articles.
Other : add {{WikiProject Open Access}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess;
- Check media files uploaded by the Open Access Media Importer for missing or incomplete categorization or lack of descriptions, or put the files into suitable Wikipedia articles. See also recent uploads of open-access files more generally.

Open (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen articles

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Open access was copied or moved into Citation index with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Archives

Index 1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Dogma journals[edit]

It appears that the vast majority of the so-called respected journals mostly publish papers supporting existing dogmas, e.g. no so-called respected journal would allow a paper casting even a shadow of doubt on MAN-MADE global warming; seismology journals would publish any garbage supporting existing dogmas but would not allow anything doubting the dogmas. Most so-called respected journals would automatically unsubmit a manuscript should the author(s) indicate they cannot pay the publication fee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.214.72.38 (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Predatory Review[edit]

To be fair, it should be noted that respected journals do not hesitate to use not to the point and unfair reviews when they reject articles that they don't want to accept. I once submitted a paper to a very distinguished and well-known journal. One reviewer wrote that everything written in the work is long known and therefore the work should be rejected. Another reviewer wrote that everything in it was wrong and therefore it should be rejected. The editor wrote that he read both reviews carefully and he agrees with both. Needless to say, it's a waste of time trying to appeal to the editor. Urila (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usable source, Oviedo-García 2021[edit]

This 2021 paper by Oviedo-García contains a ton of sources (and statements) that can be used to expand this article. Also, while I'm not familiar with the Grudniewicz et al. definition of predatory journals, it seems highly-cited; might be worth covering in "Characteristics", rather than "Other efforts", depending on how impactful it's been? DFlhb (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to PDF of unpublished conference talk slides[edit]

The reference https://doi.org/10.13140%2F2.1.2988.7364 leads to a PDF of the slides from a talk which appears to have been presented at a conference at Columbia University in 2014 but not published anywhere except by the author on ResearchGate. It is unclear to me if this is an acceptable reference, and if acceptable, how to fix the template which is being used for it in the article. TheGoblin (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]